• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    … when was the last time capitalism led to mass starvation and death? Every famine I’m aware of since 1950 has been the cause of either war, recurring environmental issues that have resulted in famines across multiple economic systems, or government mismanagement.

    The rest is correct, but the mass starvation and death is a very curious insertion.

    Also curious that it’s not really a cycle, since the ‘free’ market is never disestablished or interrupted in the cycle despite being ‘established’ again at the top of the cycle.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        (1) It is unlikely that 90% of the human population lived in extreme poverty prior to the 19th century. Historically, unskilled urban labourers in all regions tended to have wages high enough to support a family of four above the poverty line by working 250 days or 12 months a year, except during periods of severe social dislocation, such as famines, wars, and institutionalized dispossession – particularly under colonialism

        This is utterly insane and against every serious study of premodern economics I’m aware of.

        Capitalism directly causes poverty, and the starvation of at least 9 million people worldwide per year.

        Considering that most deaths by starvation and malnutrition are in areas where capitalism is weak to begin with…?

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Every serious study of pre modern economics that I have seen supports that premise. Homelessness and starvation when famine isn’t present didn’t exist anywhere before capitalism. Hell, even Adam Smith said that it would be necessary to switch off of capitalism to something more equitable once certain economic milestones had been achieved. We achieved those milestones in the mid 1850s to 1870s by the latest.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Every serious study of pre modern economics that I have seen supports that premise. Homelessness and starvation when famine isn’t present didn’t exist anywhere before capitalism.

            Jesus fucking Christ.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                And he spoke to the ultra-impoverished, discussed hunger outside of the context of famines as a serious problem, and was homeless.

                But hey! Historical evidence doesn’t matter when there’s an ideological axe to grind. Facts are twisted to suit ideological conceptions, not ideological conceptions changed to suit facts, right?

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  He spoke to the poor. There were no ultra impoverished. That category didn’t exist based on historical evidence. He spoke to hunger, not starvation outside of famine.

                  We don’t know if he had a home, he probably did, but just kinda abandoned it.

                  Try actually reading Adam Smith

                  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    He spoke to the poor. There were no ultra impoverished. He spoke to hunger, not starvation outside of famine.

                    People in the ancient world often sold themselves into slavery to stay alive.

                    People don’t sell themselves into fucking slavery because they’re only moderately impoverished and fear just being a little bit hungry.

                    The idea that there was no extreme poverty in the ancient world is utterly bizarre and against everything we know about ancient societies and economies.

                    We don’t know if he had a home, he probably did, but just kinda abandoned it.

                    “he probably did”

                    Jesus fucking Christ.

                    Try actually reading Adam Smith

                    I have read Adam Smith, ffs. Have you?